dwayne wrote:
> Cynthia wrote:
Until we have acheived this, everyone should be able to protect themselves as they see fit.
> >
> > > The entire gun debate revolves around present-day examples,
> > > and I don't think present-day humans are an ideal, so they shouldn't be
> > > allowed near guns.
> >
> > What a paradox. If people were ideal, we wouldn't need guns.
>
> Kind of my point. Shouldn't we be working out how to achieve this,
> rather than promoting access to weaponry?
> I see offensive/defensive capability as a sidetrack on the path to
> transhumanism, myself.
> > > Well, no shit, sherlock.
> > > I would FAR RATHER discuss technologies which would develop people's
> > > self-control and reason such that they are CAPABLE of handling such
> > > technologies. Humans nowadays are barely evolved past monkey stage, and
> > > I'm usually not at all convinced that we have gone beyond monkeys.
> > > Especially en masse.
> >
> > Well that is a very politically incorrect topic.
>
> I have no real interest in the political actions people ascribe to my
> ideas, I just think them, and out they come. If people don't like what I
> say, it's the key between 's' and 'f'
>
> > Before we can do very much about the
> > situation we have to realize that:
> >
> > 1. Some people are much better/smarter than other people.
>
> Guns make no distinction at all in this regard. Dead is dead.
That is true. Dead is dead, no matter whether you are the criminal or the victim, but there is a qualitative difference between which is still alive after a crime is commited and which is not.
>
Untill you have a solution, stop denigrating those of us with our fingers in the dike.
> > 2. Most of that difference is genetic.
>
> True.
>
> > 3. Despite the fact that the education industry is one of the biggest industries in the
> > country, education technology is still in the stone age (it is not very useful).
>
> Absolutely. These are the areas we should be discussing, not the
> ability or otherwise to shoot people.
Mike Lorrey